About Me

In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen

Friday, 17 September 2010

Bassam Zawadi Rebukes Nabeel Qureshi (Again)

Is this the debate aftermath? No. It is simply a quest to eliminate misinformation being put forward by Christian apologists and prevent it from becoming a future canard being passed on by unwitting Christians.

The Back Drop

The Christian apologist, Nabeel Qureshi, was caught presenting a faulty translation of a narration despite having been previously warned by Bassam Zawadi regarding the faulty translation.

However, upon being informed of the blog post rebuking Nabeel Qureshi for his misleading actions, Qureshi came out and offered a desperate conspiracy theory to defend his use of the incorrectly translated narration. His curt response:

Yahya--

I have seen the narration from Ibn Sad with my own eyes. If someone wants to argue that a Muslim translator made it up and put it into the English version, that makes no sense to me.

On the other hand, if a Muslim publisher wants to take it out of an Arabic publication, that makes all the sense in the world, and is much more likely what happened.

If you can find an ancient MS of Ibn Sa'd (at least a very early one) and show me that the line is missing, then you have an argument.

Clearly you have never studied textual criticism. I suggest you study before speaking up so much. Cheers,

-Nabeel

Nazam got wind of this and quizzed Bassam Zawadi (who originally informed Qureshi of the inapplicable and fallacious nature of the translation in question). Zawadi offered a real in depth email response which blows further uncertainty upon Qureshi’s scholarship, integrity and desire for the truth.

This blog post will see Bassam Zawadi’s email response published in its entirety and then a summary and commentary as well as a verification of Zawadi’s pronouncements using two well-versed Arabic speakers who are pretty well known in the Muslim cyber-community.

Bassam Zawadi’s Email Response to Qureshi’s Comments

Assalamu Alaykum Nazam,

Thanks for your email.

It’s surprising to see that Nabeel is continuing to push forth this argument after I have warned him in our debate last year in July, 2009 that the phrase “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an” does not exist in the original Arabic text. I am assuming that Nabeel is relying on a faulty translation by Muhammad ibn Sa’d and Syed Moinul Haq published in 1967.

I told Nabeel that relying solely on translations is not sufficient and that we must go back to the original Arabic text. His refusal to do this could open the door for Muslims to follow his logic and blindly insist that the Jehovah Witness translation of John 1:1 is accurate regardless of what the Greek text says, while Nabeel wouldn’t have any right to object if he wants to remain consistent!

It’s amazing to see Nabeel saying to the Muslim brother “Clearly you have never studied textual criticism”, yet Nabeel is not doing any textual criticism himself, for he is completely ignoring what the original Arabic text says and stubbornly insists on relying on a translation, which he has been warned to be faulty.

The least Nabeel could have done was ask a Christian friend who knows Arabic to verify whether the Arabic text has been accurately translated. He has not done so.

Last year after the debate Nabeel informed me that he only had three days to prepare for the debate. I thought to myself “Why debate a topic you are not well prepared for? That is not an excuse!” Also, right after the debate he told me that he would consult (or interact) with me on this topic, however until now I haven’t received a single email from Nabeel talking to me about any issues regarding the topic. One would think that he would at least be curious enough to ask me to provide the actual Arabic text of the narration and provide him with the correct translation! So more than a year later we still see that Nabeel hasn’t properly studied his arguments and seems to have found his “three days of preparation” last year to have been sufficient!

It appears that Nabeel has reintroduced this argument with no apparent desire of seeking the truth. This is upsetting to know, especially since Nabeel in his videos portrays himself as someone sincere for knowing the truth.

Now let us get to the matter at hand. Allow me to provide you with the actual Arabic text of the narration. First of all, the reference that I have is Volume 2, page 344 and not page 444. Perhaps this is the reference in the edition that Nabeel has. No big deal. Here is the Arabic text:

The funny thing is that this Arabic text is even available in the Arabic translation of one of John Gilchrist’s articles on the Answering Islam website: www.answering-islam.org/Arabic/Gilchrist/Jam/jam3-2.html. They should have warned John Gilchrist about the faulty translation!

The translation provided by Nabeel perfectly matches the Arabic text except for the words highlighted in red:

The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth".

The Arabic words فغلوا المصاحف (faghullu al masaahif) have been falsely translated into “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an".

The focus is on the word faghullu. The translator found this to imply deceit in the text of the Qur’an itself, which is completely false. The word faghullu (فغلوا) comes from the Arabic word al ghulool (الغلول). In this context it means “the taking of something without any right” and this is a form of betrayal. Imam Al Tabari in his commentary on Surah 3:161 talks about how the word ghalla (one of the derivatives of the word ghulool) means خان (khaana) in Arabic, which means betrayal. Indeed, Ibn Mas’ud did initially feel betrayed by Uthman’s decision to standardize the texts.

This word was commonly referred to those who use to take from the war booty before it was justly distributed. We even see the use of one of its derivates in Surah 3:161.

We understand this word in this narration the same way we understand as it’s derivative in Surah 3:161. Why? Because Ibn Masud in another narration in regards to the whole matter goes on to quote this portion from Surah 3:161:

waman yaghlul ya/ti bima ghalla yawma alqiyamati

and he who acts unfaithfully shall bring that in respect of which he has acted unfaithfully on the day of resurrection

So going back to the narration, what is it actually saying? Well Ibn Masud is saying that the manuscripts are being taken away from them unjustly (i.e. Uthman demanding all the manuscripts to be burnt) and he feels betrayed by this. He did not say that there is deceit in the manuscripts of Uthman. The words from the English translation “in the reading of the Qur'an” do not even exist in the text. This is an interpretation of the words of Ibn Masud and has no basis.

This is extremely important to note. The whole argument of Nabeel lies on the words “in the reading of the Qur’an”, for that is the object of deceit in the English translation. However, those words do NOT exist in the original Arabic text.

Just as I have explained in my debate with Nabeel, Ibn Mas’ud was initially against the standardization of Uthman (it was during this phase where he uttered the above), but he never once accused the Uthmanic manuscripts of containing errors in them. Then Ibn Masud agreed with Uthman’s standardization. The reading we have of Ibn Masud is like what we have today just as Ibn Hazm and Imam Al Baqillani have said.

I advise you and others to watch the debate again and refresh your memories. Unfortunately there are people who continue to repeat their allegations while completely ignoring or failing to understand our responses to them. They think that the presence of variants compromises the perfect preservation of the Qur’an and use their textual history of the New Testament as an analogy. Unfortunately, this only demonstrates that they have not grasped the subject matter that well enough.

In conclusion, the translation that Nabeel is using is horrendously wrong. Last year, no one could have really blamed Nabeel for relying on a faulty translation. However, after it was brought to his attention he still persists on using the narration without even verifying with someone who knows Arabic whether the narration is actually translated properly! Now that is extremely problematic and speaks loads about Nabeel’s academic honesty. I know he doesn’t trust us Muslims because he thinks we are a big bunch of liars who just practice taqqiyah for a living, but he could at least ask an Arab Christian to provide him with a word by word translation of the text!

I will say again what I said in my debate with him last year:

If Nabeel is planning to present this narration as an argument, he better show me the original Arabic text and if he doesn’t I’m just going to reply back and say that this phrase does not exist and would challenge him to show me the original Arabic source.

Furthermore, let’s say that the translation is correct. So what? We have shown that Ibn Mas’ud eventually agreed with Uthman’s reading and that the readings we have from Ibn Mas’ud transmitted down to us agree with the Uthmanic manuscripts. So again, this argument of his is not really that significant in terms of implications to the argument for the preservation of the Qur’an. It’s not essential to point out that Ibn Mas’ud at some point in his life disagreed with Uthman’s readings, but whether he died believing that. The latter is what matters and is impossible to show. Furthermore, one would have to provide evidence for Ibn Masud being right, while everyone else was wrong!

Kind Regards,

Bassam--------------------- End of Bassam's Email to Nazam-----------------------

Summary and a Spot of Commentary

Firstly, I want to state the textual criticism jibe brought into play by Nabeel Qureshi is nothing but a superficial misdirection in order to distract Qureshi’s supporters and even critics from the real issue; the real issue being one of Qureshi’s lack of research and lack of regard for accuracy.

As confirmed by Bassam Zawadi, Qureshi had over a year to research the faulty translation and the actual Arabic source material. Qureshi did not bother to do so and utilised a translation which he effectively knew to be inaccurate.

Qureshi has not done one iota of research and is wrongly keeping this bout of misinformation alive. Qureshi’s conspiracy theory of Muslims doctoring the Arabic text in order to remove the problematic statement is myopic and smacks of desperation to save face. Sadly for Qureshi, even his conspiracy theory falls flat on its face as the translation which he utilised is the 1967 translation; is Qureshi really expecting us to believe Muslims began doctoring the text after 1967?

To pour further scorn and refutation on Qureshi’s conspiracy theory the actual Arabic text is even displayed on Qureshi’s fellow missionary website – as confirmed by Bassam Zawadi. I have checked Zawadi’s link and I can confirm the Arabic text is present. Check for yourself.

So Qureshi’s conspiracy theory is irrelevant and can be dismissed for the desperate face-saving and misdirecting attempt it was designed to be. However, the more astute would ask whether Zawadi’s translation is correct or not – Qureshi should have done this rather than remain dormant for a year and surface with the same claim and append an incongruous conspiracy theory in order to justify the use of the “narration” AFTER being caught out!

Is Bassam Zawadi Correct?

Bassam Zawadi’s response has an ennobling feel to it and does encourage further research. Zawadi wrote:

This is extremely important to note. The whole argument of Nabeel lies on the words “in the reading of the Qur’an”, for that is the object of deceit in the English translation. However, those words do NOT exist in the original Arabic text.

OK, even I can see this is correct thus rendering Qureshi’s translation noticeably faulty. You can check the Arabic text for yourself or get somebody who knows Arabic to verify this statement for you.

Strong Arabic Speakers Agree with Bassam Zawadi

On top of this I made inquiries with two individuals who know Arabic well. 1MoreMuslim from YouTube is the gentleman who recently rebuked Dr James White for using a faulty amateur translation of a Quranic Verse. 1MoreMuslim stated on the translation used by Qureshi:

“The translation given by Nabeel cannot be more stretched”

I have appended all of 1MoreMuslim’s email in appendix 1

Both 1MoreMuslim and IslamResponses are in agreement on the fact that the translation Qureshi used is incorrect and they both offer the view the first two words should be translated as “hide the Masahif (manuscripts)”

IslamResponses offers a correct translation for the relevant part of the narration:

“Hide the manuscripts, I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit.”

Actually, in IslamResponses’ breakdown of the usage of the word in question (ghullu) you can see how the translator (S. Moinul Haq) wrongly came to the word “deceit” and Zawadi explains the rest of the English translation “ is an interpretation of the words of Ibn Masud and has no basis”. Therefore if we piece together the information put forward by Zawadi and IslamResponses we can see how the mistake came about. IslamResponses’ analysis is in appendix 1.

So, is Bassam Zawadi correct?

Yes, two other strong speakers of Arabic agree that the translation used by Qureshi is indeed faulty and thus should not be utilised to support an argument.

The positive to come out of this saga is the further publicising of the incorrect nature of the English translation used by Qureshi and others who seek to attack the preservation of the Quran. Effectively, we realise the argument espoused by the critics is invalid and obsolete – it should NOT be used by anybody with a shred of intellectual integrity.

Full Circlewith Nabeel Qureshi

We have come full circle and return to Nabeel Qureshi’s missive, “I suggest you study before speaking up so much”.

Well Nabeel, it appears as though people who have a regard for the truth (Nazam, Bassam, 1MoreMuslim and IslamResponses) conducted more research and study in half an hour than you did in a whole year. Had Qureshi stuck to his word of getting back to Bassam Zawadi after the debate in an attempt to iron out the flaws in his own understanding he would have saved us all time and even saved himself from developing a reputation of unreliability and lack of concern for accuracy.

NOTE:I have another video, yet to be uploaded related to another aspect of intellectual dishonesty on the part of Qureshi stemming from his now infmaous double-team attack video against Quranic preservation. God willing, it will be uploaded after some further checks and/or refinements

An Appeal to Nabeel Qureshi, James White and Antonio Santana (mbi3030)

Antonio is a friend of mine and unfortunately he featured Qureshi’s offending video on his site and continued to feature it despite my objections being put forward to him. Antonio, is far from versed in Quranic preservation and is certainly incapable of defending the offending material. Why feature material which you are unable to defend and is shown to be faulty. Surely the wise move would be to remove to material from circulation.

James White has featured Qureshi’s video on his blog; I hope to send White an email on this subject. White should do the right thing too, that is to remove the misinformation from his blog.

Nabeel Qureshi, please have a rethink of your use of this material in the future. Moreover, you should set the example and remove your video from circulation immediately. Please do the checks recommended to you by Bassam as well. Sir, pride always comes before a fall. Your response to me was not only inadequate but was full of pride. Please think about it.

Good people do not sit on their hands when misinformation presents itself

May Allah reward Bassam Zawadi, Nazam, IslamResponses and 1MoreMuslim for their work in putting to bed misinformation and this particular inapplicable argument.

Muslims are called to holiness and honesty. Mufti Taqi Uthmani recognises mistakes made by Christians AND Muslims which render the subsequent arguments inapplicable. Uthmani even labels the results of the misunderstanding of Christianity on the part of Muslim refutations and Christians as “evils”. It is excellent to see the eminent scholar, Mufti Taqi Uthmani, is encouraging a thorough understanding of the subject in hand. [1]

I particularly make mention to this for the purpose of Antonio, when Antonio stated he would not remove Qureshi’s misinformation from his site a Christian commenter agreed with Anotnio’s decision and seemingly justified his agreement based on the mistakes made by Muslims in the past with relation to Christianity, This “our misinformation vs. your misinformation” attitude NEEDS to stop immediately.

Islam does not allow presenting misinformation about somebody else’s faith and Uthmani encourages a full understanding of Christianity on the part of Muslims – presenting misinformation about somebody’s faith is not clever

Does Christianity allow Christians to present misinformation and inapplicable arguments against Islam?

Food for thought, Antonio and Nabeel.

Lessons learned

I have found Bassam Zawadi’s debate material very inspirational and realised there is a need for individual Muslims to understand the material being put forth by Zawadi and others. I have personally found the study of Quranic preservation extremely enjoyable (though initially daunting).

Personally, I have Al Azami’s book on the subject and Von Denffer’s book as well as having access to material from Yasir Qahdi and Dr Mohamed Mamdou. An internet friend of mine has put forward a humble video presentation on the subject and refutation of some of the polemics being used by some Christian missionaries. There is also a useful online book which I have recently downloaded, written by Hamza Bajwa.

There is a lot of study material out there which BOTH Christians and Muslims can benefit from

However, the fastest way to deal with a polemic is by revisiting Bassam Zawadi’s informing pronouncements in his debate with Qureshi. See Nazam’s YouTube page.

An Invitation to Islam

Finally, if you are not Muslim please give Islam a chance. Visit your local Islamic centre, befriend a few pious Muslims in order to learn about the faith and read a translation of the Quran. You have nothing to lose, I invite you to research Islam and become Muslims. Pray to God and ask him to guide you to the Truth whilst you research Islam.

Salam ,The translation given by Nabeel cannot be more stretched.Most of the Arabic words beginning with the letter "GH", imply a meaning of hiding from sight. Like for example the word " Ghurub" (sunset) or the disappearance of the sun, and the word "ghaba" : to be absent and away from sight.The word "ghalla" in its most basic form means to hide something, to keep out of sight. But the context defines what is the precise meaning: It means to hide a booty when the context is war, it means deceit when it's about hiding a bad plan, it means also Hidden hatred or antagonism.In the context of Ibn Masuud, he said simply to hide the Masahif.

it is not permissible for any prophet (to deceive) to cheat his community regarding booty; it is also possible that the meaning is: it is not permissible for a community to deceive its prophet. (Whoso deceiveth) as regards any of the booty (will bring his deceit with him) carried on his neck (on the Day of Resurrection

the Jew (say: Allah's hand is fettered) and cannot give. (Their hands are fettered) they neither do good nor spend in good causes (and they are accursed) they are punished by the imposition of the capitation tax on them (for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty) His hands are wide open for both the righteous and the sinner. (He bestoweth as He will) if He wishes, He gives, and if He wishes, He withholds. (That which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord).

4-أما معنى : غلوا مصاحفكم أى لا تظهروها وأخفوها

the meaning of (فغلوا المصاحف ) is to:

hide the manuscripts and do not show them to anybody .

so the translation of this hadith is:

(Hide the manuscripts,I like it better to read according to the recitation of the one whom I love more (( he means the Prophet) than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I had learned more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth"

35 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Salam Alikum,

Thank you for this excellent post..bro could you plz link us to the youtube channel of your friend who has a video on the subject matter and refutation of some of the polemics being used by some Christian missionaries.

Hello:I found the info interesting though not having access to the original material or knowledge of Arabic it is impossible for me to evaluate the claims and counter-claims.Perhaps Nabeel is wrong,or maybe not.Concerning Bassam and his analysis of the NT,however,concerning THAT,on that I can affirm he is wrong on some points,and proven wrong years ago.Irrespective of whether the Koran has been perfectly preserved,and assuming it has,it still does not have the evidence to prove it is divine.On the blog avraidire.eu there are articles by me and others in French and English telling the WHY Islam's claims do not stand.The French articles can easily be translated into English using TRANSALTE GOOGLE(http://translate.google.com/#)which can be used to translate over FIFTY languages.Atheists and even a few Muslims(to my great surprise) read it and there are good debates in French in the COMMENT section.

Minoria,I am Arab Muslim, I speak Arabic, French and English. Me and IslamResponses, gave the same Arabic rendering of the Quote, even though we did not coordinate with each other. You can believe us, or Nabeel who can't read a single word in Arabic. I find it disturbing that you recommend avraidire.eu, which advocates hate toward Muslims, and vilifies Muslim immigrants in Europe.

What is your main objection to Islam? My contentions with Christianity are, the inconsistency between the theology and the scripture, the clear contradictions in the scripture, The forgeries in the scriptures and the irrationality of Christian doctrines.

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

Brother Yahya excellent work. I want your permission to repost a post you did a week back exposing Nabeel Qureshi not being very forthright in the material presented in the "Burning of the Qur'an" he and Wood put together.

You never need my permission to do anything. Go ahead and repost whatever you like. InshaAllah

Yeah, I noticed Qureshi's silence with regards to your question.

However, it gets worse as Qureshi invited me to discuss the issue with him in the same comment section but he (or Wood) unapproved my latest comment informing him and his readers of THIS post as a response to his comment.

Why invite me in the first place...clearly Wood and/or Qureshi did not want their audience to see Qureshi's misinformation for what it is.

I am glad you speak French,the most beautiful language in the world.As I said before if Nabeel is wrong then he is wrong but I can only say yes or no 100% on NT matters.About avraidire.eu it has alot of themes,there are purely Christian themes,then articles for atheists,about Islam.Regarding Islam it is in 2 categories:1.About the jihad danger to human rights(and you would agree with me on that,correct?That they are AGAINST human rights,you don't actually agree with their crazy ideas) and:2.About Islam(Koran,Muhammed) properly,no reference to jihad,politics.3.If there is something you do not like about avraidire.eu in X article you can post and there is NO MODERATION.Unless the comment has foul language,it is NEVER taken out.In fact I have never known of any comment being DELETED(all have used good-enough language).Some articles are by Antoine,others by me and others by others.

To IBN and 1moremuslim:

When you analyse the Koran you see it has good advice but then puts in a condition,that raises a red flag.So for Ibn,that would not be ignorance but being perceptive.Concerning the NT,look at it as a PURELY HUMAN document and see if the CONSPIRACY THEORY holds:1.Look at MARK and we at least know SOMEBODY(even if not Mark) wrote it.What does THAT book say?

a.It says Jesus was God.(in the conspiracy theory it is an INTERPOLATION(not by "Mark") or PROPAGANDA by "Mark")b.Jesus says THREE TIMES he would be killed and resurrect on the 3rd day(again,interpolation or propaganda)and that the Jerusalem Temple would be destroyed(interpolation or propaganda)c.Jesus does MIRACLES(again,interpolation or propaganda)

Yet:The book has parts that are AGAINST propaganda(Jesus says "Why do you call me good",he doesn't know the Last Hour,on the cross he says "My God,why have you forsaken me",his family thinks he is mad,etc)

In ANTIQUITY 90% of people were ILLITERATE(according John Dominic Crossan,Jesus Seminar)so it would have been very easy for the Christian leaders to FALSIFY the book,yet they kept those passages.

The SAME for LUKE,MATTHEW and JOHN.There is the science of MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY and it would be low for it to happen to ONE BOOK but for 2,then 3 ,then 4,the probability of the leaders getting together in the night and FABRICATING an OFFICIAL VERSION(with interpolations and taking out parts)is very low.

SO?

That is ONE REASON why scholars says 99% of the gospels have been preserved like the ORIGINAL version.Not that it is true,only that it has been preserved.

Regarding the citation Antoine makes reference to the dreams of Muslim religious leaders that with Muslim immigrants Europe will become Muslim.That is a fact.Again,you can comment there and there is NO MODERATION,the comment appears right away.

A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).

I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.

What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.

Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.

So Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds… then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon me when I was IN (fee) A WOMAN’S GARMENT (Thawb) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.” Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 2393

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

I am glad you speak French,the most beautiful language in the world.As I said before if Nabeel is wrong then he is wrong but I can only say yes or no 100% on NT matters.About avraidire.eu it has alot of themes,there are purely Christian themes,then articles for atheists,about Islam.Regarding Islam it is in 2 categories:1.About the jihad danger to human rights(and you would agree with me on that,correct?That they are AGAINST human rights,you don't actually agree with their crazy ideas) and:2.About Islam(Koran,Muhammed) properly,no reference to jihad,politics.3.If there is something you do not like about avraidire.eu in X article you can post and there is NO MODERATION.Unless the comment has foul language,it is NEVER taken out.In fact I have never known of any comment being DELETED(all have used good-enough language).Some articles are by Antoine,others by me and others by others.

To IBN and 1moremuslim:

When you analyse the Koran you see it has good advice but then puts in a condition,that raises a red flag.So for Ibn,that would not be ignorance but being perceptive.Concerning the NT,look at it as a PURELY HUMAN document and see if the CONSPIRACY THEORY holds:1.Look at MARK and we at least know SOMEBODY(even if not Mark) wrote it.What does THAT book say?

a.It says Jesus was God.(in the conspiracy theory it is an INTERPOLATION(not by "Mark") or PROPAGANDA by "Mark")b.Jesus says THREE TIMES he would be killed and resurrect on the 3rd day(again,interpolation or propaganda)and that the Jerusalem Temple would be destroyed(interpolation or propaganda)c.Jesus does MIRACLES(again,interpolation or propaganda)

Yet:The book has parts that are AGAINST propaganda(Jesus says "Why do you call me good",he doesn't know the Last Hour,on the cross he says "My God,why have you forsaken me",his family thinks he is mad,etc)

In ANTIQUITY 90% of people were ILLITERATE(according John Dominic Crossan,Jesus Seminar)so it would have been very easy for the Christian leaders to FALSIFY the book,yet they kept those passages.

The SAME for LUKE,MATTHEW and JOHN.There is the science of MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY and it would be low for it to happen to ONE BOOK but for 2,then 3 ,then 4,the probability of the leaders getting together in the night and FABRICATING an OFFICIAL VERSION(with interpolations and taking out parts)is very low.

SO?

That is ONE REASON why scholars says 99% of the gospels have been preserved like the ORIGINAL version.Not that it is true,only that it has been preserved.

Regarding the citation Antoine makes reference to the dreams of Muslim religious leaders that with Muslim immigrants Europe will become Muslim.That is a fact.Again,you can comment there and there is NO MODERATION,the comment appears right away.

I am glad you speak French,the most beautiful language in the world.As I said before if Nabeel is wrong then he is wrong but I can only say yes or no 100% on NT matters.About avraidire.eu it has alot of themes,there are purely Christian themes,then articles for atheists,about Islam.Regarding Islam it is in 2 categories:1.About the jihad danger to human rights(and you would agree with me on that,correct?That they are AGAINST human rights,you don't actually agree with their crazy ideas) and:2.About Islam(Koran,Muhammed) properly,no reference to jihad,politics.3.If there is something you do not like about avraidire.eu in X article you can post and there is NO MODERATION.Unless the comment has foul language,it is NEVER taken out.In fact I have never known of any comment being DELETED(all have used good-enough language).Some articles are by Antoine,others by me and others by others.

To IBN and 1moremuslim:

When you analyse the Koran you see it has good advice but then puts in a condition,that raises a red flag.So for Ibn,that would not be ignorance but being perceptive.Concerning the NT,look at it as a PURELY HUMAN document and see if the CONSPIRACY THEORY holds:1.Look at MARK and we at least know SOMEBODY(even if not Mark) wrote it.What does THAT book say?

a.It says Jesus was God.(in the conspiracy theory it is an INTERPOLATION(not by "Mark") or PROPAGANDA by "Mark")b.Jesus says THREE TIMES he would be killed and resurrect on the 3rd day(again,interpolation or propaganda)and that the Jerusalem Temple would be destroyed(interpolation or propaganda)c.Jesus does MIRACLES(again,interpolation or propaganda)

Yet:The book has parts that are AGAINST propaganda(Jesus says "Why do you call me good",he doesn't know the Last Hour,on the cross he says "My God,why have you forsaken me",his family thinks he is mad,etc)

In ANTIQUITY 90% of people were ILLITERATE(according John Dominic Crossan,Jesus Seminar)so it would have been very easy for the Christian leaders to FALSIFY the book,yet they kept those passages.

The SAME for LUKE,MATTHEW and JOHN.There is the science of MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY and it would be low for it to happen to ONE BOOK but for 2,then 3 ,then 4,the probability of the leaders getting together in the night and FABRICATING an OFFICIAL VERSION(with interpolations and taking out parts)is very low.

SO?

That is ONE REASON why scholars says 99% of the gospels have been preserved like the ORIGINAL version.Not that it is true,only that it has been preserved.

Regarding the citation Antoine makes reference to the dreams of Muslim religious leaders that with Muslim immigrants Europe will become Muslim.That is a fact.Again,you can comment there and there is NO MODERATION,the comment appears right away.

Minoria, What a scoop!!! The Muslims dream about turning Europe into Muslim continent. You know what it's not the dream of the religious leaders, it's also the dream of every Muslim. These are statements that are not worth to be said. The Christians dream about making the whole world christian, that is why you have missionaries in all over the countries and specially those people who have too malnourished to realize the nonsense of Christianity.About the Gospels, if they are early, that would make them an early books of fiction and forgeries. 99 % of NT scholars believe that 2 Peter is a forgeries. Even old christian thinkers were against 2 Peter and Hebrews. The NT is so filled with contradictions, that Bart Ehrman wrote a book, dedicated only to that.

About 2 Peter the main reasons it is rejected as being from Peter is:1.Its style is different from 1 Peter.But ACTS 4:13 says Peter was ILLITERATE.In 1 PETER 5:12 it says the one who wrote the letter for Peter was a certain SILAS.Bart Ehrman in his Misquoting Jesus(2005) says it was common then(with 90% illiteracy) to dictate a few main ideas to a professional scribe and he would put it in his own words,the final product to be approved or not by the commissioner.I don't see why 2 PETER would not have been by another scribe.2.That 2 PETER 3:4 talks of a generation that had passed away,so it would be after Peter's death.Now 90% of those in the 1st century died by age 46(according to John Crossan)and so Paul and Peter,who lived till their 60's,certainly outlived 90% and more of their contemporaries,and so such a phrase can still apply to Peter.

Concerning Muslim immigrants and their children if the great majority are for laicite and freedom of speech(including freedom to criticize Muhammed and the Koran and not get penalized) then there would be no friction,but there is evidence to the contrary.You know French and you also know the parts in the Koran regarding women that are controversial.You probably know the famous MALEK CHEBEL,he is an Algerian Muslim intellectual living in France who has good points(he wrote a book about slavery under Islam where he says what everybody in answeringmuslims knows:it lasted longer,involved more slaves(20 million)and still exists in Muslim countries.The book is "L'Esclavage en terre d'islam"(2007).Here is a video in French where he discusses that book:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpQGHBKelaQ

BUT..Ok,I had said that in answeringmuslims people are aware of controversial passages in the Koran regarding women.Now in the following video in French,where most of the experts are Muslim,there is no mention of them.The detail that took me by surprise was that MALEK CHEBEL,who participates in the documentary,makes no mention either.He should have to give a 100% accurate presentation:Here it is"Le prophete de l'islam et les femmes":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAttbEiRqTo

Now he is quite open-minded so he should have said more and so it is a sign that even from such a Muslim leader as he a non-Muslim has to research by himself.He will not get the information from Malek Chebel.

Anonymousing is at it again, making a fool of himself! This thread is about the preservation of the Quran, not the sexual orientation of Muhammad(saw)-a topic that I have adequately addressed in a different thread. Unfortunately, not only does Anonymousing know NOT what a red herring is (which would explain why he keeps bringing up this off-topic issue in every thread), he is also impaired in vision or plain stupid. He writes:

"I do not see a single refutation anywhere"

If you have your head buried in the ground like an ostrich, how will you see the refutation (which due to a technical glitch appeared numerous times-simply unmissable) in the "Responding to Turrentinfan's probing on the Islamic view of the Gospels"? If you have a response, post it in that thread instead of here.

And for crying out loud, stop whining about your posts being deleted! There's nothing devastating about what you write that would lead to Muslims wanting to suppressing the truth. Unlike you folks, we are honest. We don't follow Phillipans.

I have to add a bit more.Again about Mark or "Mark".I think it is from 50 AD but most say 70-75 AD,no problem,we will start there.Let us look at it as a purely HUMAN document,1st century AD.What do we know?

It is technically anonymous,later it was attributed to MARK,but (counter-propaganda)those same people said Mark NEVER knew Jesus.It would have been logical for them to say PETER,JAMES,THOMAS,PAUL,MARY MAGDALENE wrote it.

WHERE DID THE AUTHOR GET HIS INFORMATION?

He did NOT have the book Q(collection of 230 verses common to Luke-Matthew,but ABSENT in Mark),so Q is no source.

He wrote 40 YEARS after Jesus' death,and he did NOT know Jesus.His SOURCE would have been ORAL TRADITION of the Christians.

Now to say the author invented miracles and prophecies by Jesus as PROPAGANDA(yet inexplicably added counter-propaganda info)is inaccurate,in my opinion.Again let us look at this NATURALISTICALLY.

Jesus could have said(having enemies around him)that he would be killed(it happens).Nothing supernatural,and he could have made a LUCKY GUESS and said the Jewish Temple would be destroyed.As for the miracles,some scholars believe they are based on FACT:not that they were real miracles,only that Jesus(like the famous RASPUTIN,who stopped the Tsar's hemophiliac son from hemorraging and dying)used hypnosis or psychological suggestion(like Rasputin)and it cured psychosomatic illneses.We have the cases of NORMAN COUSINS,who cured himself of a terrible disease through laughter(he wrote a book and they made a movie) and the use of FAKE PILLS or PLACEBOS is common in medicine.

SO?My point is that there was a Christian ORAL tradition used by "Mark" as a source of information that had a TRAdITION of FIDELITY to events concerning Jesus.Notice that source GAVE "Mark" the COUNTER-PROPAGANDA information he later wrote down.It also gave him the miracles,prophecies which were either real or at least had a naturalistic basis(they were not inventions for propaganda).If the Oral Tradition were not faithful to truth it would NOT have kept alive the counter-propaganda information that was later used by the author.

I have to add a bit more.Again about Mark or "Mark".I think it is from 50 AD but most say 70-75 AD,no problem,we will start there.Let us look at it as a purely HUMAN document,1st century AD.What do we know?

It is technically anonymous,later it was attributed to MARK,but (counter-propaganda)those same people said Mark NEVER knew Jesus.It would have been logical for them to say PETER,JAMES,THOMAS,PAUL,MARY MAGDALENE wrote it.

WHERE DID THE AUTHOR GET HIS INFORMATION?

He did NOT have the book Q(collection of 230 verses common to Luke-Matthew,but ABSENT in Mark),so Q is no source.

He wrote 40 YEARS after Jesus' death,and he did NOT know Jesus.His SOURCE would have been ORAL TRADITION of the Christians.

Now to say the author invented miracles and prophecies by Jesus as PROPAGANDA(yet inexplicably added counter-propaganda info)is inaccurate,in my opinion.Again let us look at this NATURALISTICALLY.

Jesus could have said(having enemies around him)that he would be killed(it happens).Nothing supernatural,and he could have made a LUCKY GUESS and said the Jewish Temple would be destroyed.As for the miracles,some scholars believe they are based on FACT:not that they were real miracles,only that Jesus(like the famous RASPUTIN,who stopped the Tsar's hemophiliac son from hemorraging and dying)used hypnosis or psychological suggestion(like Rasputin)and it cured psychosomatic illneses.We have the cases of NORMAN COUSINS,who cured himself of a terrible disease through laughter(he wrote a book and they made a movie) and the use of FAKE PILLS or PLACEBOS is common in medicine.

SO?My point is that there was a Christian ORAL tradition used by "Mark" as a source of information that had a TRAdITION of FIDELITY to events concerning Jesus.Notice that source GAVE "Mark" the COUNTER-PROPAGANDA information he later wrote down.It also gave him the miracles,prophecies which were either real or at least had a naturalistic basis(they were not inventions for propaganda).If the Oral Tradition were not faithful to truth it would NOT have kept alive the counter-propaganda information that was later used by the author.

just came on to warn you all about the christian-supremacist site religionnewsblog. the christian attacks against Islam continue.also, this children's bible site tellthechildrenthetruth aims at brainwashing the young into believeing Islam is false and a cult. they relate hitler and the nazi's to islam.

Your statement '..His SOURCE would have been ORAL TRADITION of the Christians..'Ok then , provide the 'isnad' / 'chain of narrators' for such oral tradition as claimed by you. Without such , the 'oral tradition of the christians' that you claim can be (1) made up (2) have been corrupted along the wayAs an example ;Jesus(1) could have said 'God willing , I will not be crucified' , or(2) did not say anythingHowever along the way it might have been changed / made up to 'I will be killed but resurrected in 3 days'. The latter is in line to what christians want to believe.

All you need is 1 person (not 4 - 5 or more as claimed by you) to change the story and it can spread like wild fire.

Well,the Christian leaders have given the chain of transmission as being MARK was a disciple of PETER who was a disciple of Jesus.You and others do not believe that so what can be said is the following:

The author,whoever he was,got it from somewhere.There are ABOUT 15 DIFFERENT COUNTER-PROPAGANDA incidents in all 4 gospels,so the fact that that information was being transmitted even after 40,50,60 years by people shows they believed in being honest.We do not know who they were but the fact that the information is counter-propaganda shows they were honest.We do not know their names but what we do know is that at least LUKE(in his introduction) tells us he verified with those who had known Jesus,or were at least reliable.

LUKE AND MATTHEW

Luke says he got much info from other books(Q would be one of them,also Mark).Matthew also used Q.But there is material in LUKE that is ONLY IN LUKE(the same for Matthew).From where did they get the information?It would have been from the oral tradition and from books(like Q,Mark and others).

The rough estimates are the following(and they are only estimates,nobody knows the real figures),that by 100 AD there were 40,000 Christians among 60 million in the Empire.By 200 AD about 200,000 among 60 million,by 300 AD from 3-6 million,by 400 AD,more than 30 million.With a 90% illiteracy and only 4,000 literate Christians in 100 AD Oral Transmission was the common way of getting information about Jesus.

You said the historical Jesus could have said nothing about being killed or that he said he would not be crucified.I could then point to ISAIAH 53,2 copies of which are from 120 BC,some 150 years before the death of Jesus.

Your claim ,'..being MARK was a disciple of PETER who was a disciple of Jesus..'You should know better than us muslims that the author for the gospel according to mark was unknown. How do you know this unknown person was a disciple of peter? The author might got it from somewhere but the question is about the reliability of the chain of narrators of the story (thus the story itself)?40 / 50 / 60 years is a long time. What was the mechanism that the author used to test the accuracy / realiability of the source / chain of narrators for the gospel according to mark?In reality , if the gospel according to mark have been tested with the criteria used in the science of hadiths , the gospel according to mark will be in trouble.BTW , why are you talking about the reliability of the gospels? This thread is about the deception of nabeel qureshi 'a christian apologist takkiya extraordinaire'

Hello Sam:You are right,the thing got off topic,so I will just post this and another comment.Using the historical method one sees counter-propaganda incidents in the 4 gospels.That fact raises the CREDIBILITY of the information.In fact it is more than I had thought,it is 25 incidents:

1.Jesus' family thought he was mad,Mark 3:212.The religious leaders thought he had a demon in him,Mark 3:223.For his family and relatives in Nazareth he was no prophet,Mark 6:4.4.His brothers didn't believe him in another occasion,John 7:55.The Son doesn't the the hr of the second coming,Mark and Matthew6.Peter denied Jesus 3X(in all 4 gospels)7.Women went around with Jesus on his travels,Luke 8:1-38.2 supposedly contradictory genealogies9.John Baptist doubted Jesus was the Messiah,Matt and Luke10.Disciples fled on night of his arrest,Mark and Matt11.The phase "My God,why have you abandoned me",Mark and Matt12.Jesus baptized by John Baptist13.MATT 28:16-17:"the eleven went to Galilee,they prostrated,they DOUBTED (about Jesus).14.Disciples didn't at first believe Jesus had resurrected,Luke and John15.JOHN 20:17:"I am going to my Father and your Father,to my God and your God"16."Why do you call me good,only God is good",Luke and Mark17.The Fig Tree Incident18.Pilate doubted Jesus had died,it seemed to him to be too soon,in Mark19:Luke 14:26 says to HATE your father,mother,wife,children,sisters and brothers20.Pagans are refered to as little dogs in MArk and Matt21.Jesus says that Peter is SATAN22.The "this generation"prophecy23.Jesus says "who is my mother and brothers and sisters,it is they who do the will of God",in MArk24.JOHN 2,Jesus says to Mary:"Woman,what is it to me?"25.In Mark it is said Jesus could only do a few miracles in Nazareth because they had no faith in him.

But there is another element,and it is simply that events in Jesus' life coincide with prophecies.That is something independent.

Also there are the:1.The 50 "Son of Man"sayings,they are in ALL 4 gospels,PLUS in Q(and in the independent Lucan and Matthean material)They have a high probability of being the words of Jesus,plus:2.The "I SAY TO YOU"sayings,and the3."Kingdom of God"sayings.All that combine to give good credibility to the at least basic information in the gospels.

You provided 25 plus 3 odd points but none addressed the issue that was hilited.Simply put , what was / is the determining mechanism that the author of 'gospel according to mark' used to determine(1) the authenticity of the source of his info which formed the basis of 'gospel according to mark'?(2) the reliability of transmission of the stories that his writing was based upon?Compare that to the mechanism involved in the (a) preservation of the Quran(b) science of hadith ie. isnads

This thread is about the deception of nabeel. I believe you are a regular participant in 'answering muslims'. Do us a favor , tell nabeel to come clean and start being honest with his sources. He has been made to look like a fool by Bro Bassam , doing it intentionally the second time and opening himself for others to rebuke is just foolishly dishonest. Now he does not even entertain comments from muslims. This is pathetic.

Regarding Nabeel I will post a comment to David that they check out the point more to verify the points brought up by Yahya but after the trial,that is to say next week.

Ok,as I said before,scholars do not know the names of the people from where the author of the first gospel got his information.I should have mentioned it before,but they use the HISTORICAL METHOD to find out what is most likely true,it has several criterions:1.Enemy attestation(Paul falls into this)2.Early attestation(like the 1 COR 15 creed,around 2 years after Jesus' death,according to the Jesus Seminar)3.Multiple attestation4.Dissimilarity(like the 50 "Son of Man" sayings,never used by the Church to refer to Jesus)5.Coherence(similarity with Jewish culture,archeological confirmation)6.EMBARASSMENT(that is where the 25 incidents fall into.I forgot one more,in JOHN Jesus says:"The Father is GREATER than I".

In Multiple Attestation we have Paul,also the independent kerygma(official creed) of 1 COR 15,the CARMEN CHRISTI kerygma,the Ebionites,Mark,Luke,Matthew,John,even the Q document(Sign of Jonah saying)talking about Jesus dying.One can add JOSEPHUS,whose reference to Jesus dying by Pilate and the Jewish leaders,and that Jesus did astonishing things(miracles?) is accepted by 75% of scholars as authentic,including the greatest authority on Josephus,LOUIS FELDMAN,who is Jewish.The greatest Jewish scholar on Jesus,GEZA VERMES,also accepts it.

SO?The thing with Josephus is that he was born in the generation after Jesus,lived in Jerusalem for decades,was of the aristocracy and so was in a good position to get RELAIBLE information about Jesus.

TO FINISH

For those who think there might be more to this life,another element of validation is the OT.

IS THE NAME OF THE MESSIAH ACTUALLY GIVEN IN THE OT?From the looks of it,yes:

Regarding Nabeel I will post a comment to David that they check out the point more to verify the points brought up by Yahya but after the trial,that is to say next week.

Ok,as I said before,scholars do not know the names of the people from where the author of the first gospel got his information.I should have mentioned it before,but they use the HISTORICAL METHOD to find out what is most likely true,it has several criterions:1.Enemy attestation(Paul falls into this)2.Early attestation(like the 1 COR 15 creed,around 2 years after Jesus' death,according to the Jesus Seminar)3.Multiple attestation4.Dissimilarity(like the 50 "Son of Man" sayings,never used by the Church to refer to Jesus)5.Coherence(similarity with Jewish culture,archeological confirmation)6.EMBARASSMENT(that is where the 25 incidents fall into.I forgot one more,in JOHN Jesus says:"The Father is GREATER than I".

In Multiple Attestation we have Paul,also the independent kerygma(official creed) of 1 COR 15,the CARMEN CHRISTI kerygma,the Ebionites,Mark,Luke,Matthew,John,even the Q document(Sign of Jonah saying)talking about Jesus dying.One can add JOSEPHUS,whose reference to Jesus dying by Pilate and the Jewish leaders,and that Jesus did astonishing things(miracles?) is accepted by 75% of scholars as authentic,including the greatest authority on Josephus,LOUIS FELDMAN,who is Jewish.The greatest Jewish scholar on Jesus,GEZA VERMES,also accepts it.

SO?The thing with Josephus is that he was born in the generation after Jesus,lived in Jerusalem for decades,was of the aristocracy and so was in a good position to get RELAIBLE information about Jesus.

TO FINISH

For those who think there might be more to this life,another element of validation is the OT.

IS THE NAME OF THE MESSIAH ACTUALLY GIVEN IN THE OT?From the looks of it,yes:

For the non-Christian the book is a forgery written in 167 BC and attributed to Daniel of the 5th cent.BC.Daniel 9 talks of "AN anointed one(messiah).The HEBREW says "AN"and not "THE".The rabbis today say that shows it is NOT about THE Messiah son of David,but about another one,since ANY high priest,prophet,king can be an anointed one.True.It also says the man would be "cut off,and have nothing",in other words be killed,it has always been understood that way.

The prophecy says that from X starting point so much time will pass and the man would be killed.There are several starting points that have been considerd but they all end in the 1st cent BC or several decades before.

But the evidence shows that 2,000 years ago,in the 1st century,the Jews expected THE Messiah to come then.The only thing that can explain this is that they considered Daniel 9 to refer to THE Messiah.In fact Daniel 9 is the only prophecy that:1)gives a time for the appearence,and 2)even use the word "anointed one".The point is not whose interpetation is right or wrong but to show thathere it coincides with JESUS.

THE DOCUMENTS

JAMES TABOR,the non-Christian scholar,in his book "The Jesus Dynasty",says the writings of the ESSENES show they thought Daniel 9 refered to THE Messiah.

"AT THAT TIME"Notice all the following historians say "at that time"referring to the 1st century:

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS ( 37-100 AD ), the famous Jewish historian, in his JEWISH WARS, which told of the Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD says in Book VI, 5.4, about:

” an ambiguous ORACLE that was also found in their ANCIENT WRITINGS,how about THAT TIME, one from THEIR COUNTRY(NOTE:refering to his Jewish people) should become GOVERNOR of the HABITABLE EARTH.” (He can only be referring to the DANIEL 9:24-27 prophecy).

TACITUS ( 50-117 AD ), greatest of the Roman historians, wrote in his HISTORY ( note: of the Roman empire), Book V, 13:

” the MAJORITY were deeply impressed with the persuasion that it was contained in the ANCIENT WRITINGS of the PRIESTS that it would come to pass that at THE VERY TIME, that the EAST would renew its strength and they that should go forth from JUDEA should be RULERS of the WORLD. ”

SUETONIUS ( 75-150 AD ), another famous Roman historian, in his LIVES of the CEASERS ( chapter on the Life of Vespasian,whoived in the FIRST century AD ) says:

” a FIRM PERSUASION had long prevailed through all the EAST that it was fated for the empire of the world at THAT TIME to devolve on SOMEONE who should go forth from JUDEA. ”

For the non-Christian the book is a forgery written in 167 BC and attributed to Daniel of the 5th cent.BC.Daniel 9 talks of "AN anointed one(messiah).The HEBREW says "AN"and not "THE".The rabbis today say that shows it is NOT about THE Messiah son of David,but about another one,since ANY high priest,prophet,king can be an anointed one.True.It also says the man would be "cut off,and have nothing",in other words be killed,it has always been understood that way.

The prophecy says that from X starting point so much time will pass and the man would be killed.There are several starting points that have been considerd but they all end in the 1st cent BC or several decades before.

But the evidence shows that 2,000 years ago,in the 1st century,the Jews expected THE Messiah to come then.The only thing that can explain this is that they considered Daniel 9 to refer to THE Messiah.In fact Daniel 9 is the only prophecy that:1)gives a time for the appearence,and 2)even use the word "anointed one".The point is not whose interpetation is right or wrong but to show thathere it coincides with JESUS.

THE DOCUMENTS

JAMES TABOR,the non-Christian scholar,in his book "The Jesus Dynasty",says the writings of the ESSENES show they thought Daniel 9 refered to THE Messiah.

"AT THAT TIME"Notice all the following historians say "at that time"referring to the 1st century:

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS ( 37-100 AD ), the famous Jewish historian, in his JEWISH WARS, which told of the Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD says in Book VI, 5.4, about:

” an ambiguous ORACLE that was also found in their ANCIENT WRITINGS,how about THAT TIME, one from THEIR COUNTRY(NOTE:refering to his Jewish people) should become GOVERNOR of the HABITABLE EARTH.” (He can only be referring to the DANIEL 9:24-27 prophecy).

TACITUS ( 50-117 AD ), greatest of the Roman historians, wrote in his HISTORY ( note: of the Roman empire), Book V, 13:

” the MAJORITY were deeply impressed with the persuasion that it was contained in the ANCIENT WRITINGS of the PRIESTS that it would come to pass that at THE VERY TIME, that the EAST would renew its strength and they that should go forth from JUDEA should be RULERS of the WORLD. ”

SUETONIUS ( 75-150 AD ), another famous Roman historian, in his LIVES of the CEASERS ( chapter on the Life of Vespasian,whoived in the FIRST century AD ) says:

” a FIRM PERSUASION had long prevailed through all the EAST that it was fated for the empire of the world at THAT TIME to devolve on SOMEONE who should go forth from JUDEA. ”

This will be my last post as I don't see this thread being relevant for this off topic discussion. Bro Yahya has been quite tolerant.

My question is very simple. What was / is the mechanism that the author of 'gospel according to mark' used to determine (1) the authenticity of the source(2) the reliability of the transmission( am only sticking to mark to keep things short)

Your answerHISTORICAL METHOD to find out what is most likely true,it has several criterions:1.Enemy attestation2.Early attestation3.Multiple attestation4.Dissimilarity5.Coherence6.EMBARASSMENT

We can put nos 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 in a group and no 2 in another.

The bible scholars could not accurately determine the authenticity of the source as they do not even know who were in the chain of transmitters and how reliable were the people involved. It gets worse as we do not know who was the author of 'the gospel according to mark'. Say for example , the first narrator of the saying / event involving biblical jesus had changed the content ; 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 will still be valid but changed. 2 - 3 subtle changes down the line ; 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 will still be valid with further changes.

Josepheus , Tacitcus , Suetonius came after the event and nothing much from them.

We can place Paul in the 'early attestation group'. However this guy was problematic. He did not come across as an honest person. Example1cor12:16 '..Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery..'phi1:18 '..in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached..'He was willing to do anything to achieve his objective. Can you trust what he wrote?

Hello Sam1528:Since you posed more details about Mark's reliability and the why,I gave an answer to it(and I will later give other example)in answeringmuslims,it is the 29th comment in the comment section of the article "Why Allah can not reveal himself".

Thanks you for the treatment of the sensible critique. I and my neighbour had been well-founded preparing to do some study encircling this one. We got a seize a register from our local library, but i brook I discovered additional from this risk up. I'm unreservedly glad to conjure up such wonderful facts enhancing shared freely available.